[Rancid]

You already said that you do not believe that someone should be more safe than a handicapped person; or do you think that it is alright when a blind person is assaulted before you are?

I believe everyone should be safe, but that doesn't mean that just because a handicapped person cannot defend themselves, we should not allow a more physically able person to defend themselves.

It's not right for anyone to be assaulted, it doesn't matter of their physical abilities, or disabilities.

It wouldn't be right if i were assaulted, and it wouldn't be right if a blind person was assaulted. Just because there are people in the world that are defenseless (old people, blind people.. etc.. etc..) doesn't mean i should also be defenseless.

If i saw a blind person being assaulted, i would help them. Would that be wrong of me? no, of course not.

what the hell kind of crap thinking is that? I think my point is clear. So you can go ahead and believe whatever twisted "equality" you want. I'm done

[Zyx]

But do not you think, in relatively becoming safer than the blind person you relatively weaken the blind person and as such make the blind person relatively more unsafe?

In that regard, how could you justify making others more unsafe?

[Rancid]

But do not you think, in relatively becoming safer than the blind person you relatively weaken the blind person and as such make the blind person relatively more unsafe?

relatively, yes they are less safe. However, They are not absolutely less safe than they were before.

Again, I believe it is wrong to restrict someone from becoming more safe. Becoming more safe, does not reduce someone else's absolute safety (in general)

In that regard, how could you justify making others more unsafe?[

you're not making others unsafe, they are just more unsafe relatively to you. They are not more unsafe in an absolute sense because i become more safe.

Speaking as an engineer, what you are doing is first arguing in terms of delta's (differences, relatives), and then making a conclusion based on magnitudes (absolute safety, not relative safety)

it's VERY flawed thinking that will lead to poor conclusions.

[Zyx]

it's flawed thinking.

No, you fail to see that there is a party that takes "relativity" into consideration; that is, the mugger you insist on existing looks upon relativity before making its strike.

Agree or disagree?

I find this very simple to agree with, but I can be impressed as to why I am wrong into thinking that a thief would sooner rob a house of equal gold to Fort Knox than Fort Knox.

[Rancid]

No, you fail to see that there is a party that takes "relativity" into consideration; that is, the mugger you insist on existing looks upon relativity before making its strike.

Agree or disagree?

I find this very simple to agree with, but I can be impressed as to why I am wrong into thinking that a thief would sooner rob a house of equal gold to Fort Knox than Fort Knox.

Yea, you're right.. theifs go for the weak. However, It doesn't make it right to artificially make everyone weak because of it, just so that everyone has an equal chance of being assaulted.



Less able people should take steps within their means to remain safe. Walk on lighted streets, walk with a buddy, have a cell phone to call for emergency, have a "rape whistle." .. etc The community should assist with that as well.


It's ok to base conclusions off of relatives. However, in this situation i believe it's not okay. which is the fundamental difference between you and I. I believe in raising the total "average magnitude" of safety, rather than minimizing the "standard deviation" of safety between people as you believe.

now, as to what exactly make someone safe is for another thread.. i'm sure we will disagree all over that one as well LOL!!!

[Zyx]

No, I espouse raising the minimum; you espouse raising the maximum.

Do not mistake that.

That is to say, I would have everyone as safe, be it unsafe or super safe; while you would have some people as safe as others so that even the "safe" are viewed as unsafe to a perpetrator.

I agree that both of us do not like thugs; but since YOU insist that thugs are about, YOU should respond why a person should be more safe according to their capabilities.

I for one do not feel that I should be safer than my family, friends, familiars, or strangers.

I am an able guy and I can become abled (wear a vest, take up firearms, practice karate) and this would all cost me money, but if my daughter should leave the house without a firearm, what do I say, she is irresponsible, or what if she insists against weapons and yet the shoppers about her are all of a different influence, is it her fault?

Why should she be burdened with her safety? I think she should be safe no matter what she does, whether she is passed out in a club or returning for target practice with the Navy.

Again, I believe we should all be safe but not that we should be responsible/cautious/prepared for our safety.

And further, I fail to see why someone should enroll into a program (that takes from their economy) to personally become safe . . . if you demand that it be free then you are merely cutting expenses from public safety.

In other words, you would lower the minimum in order to raise the maximum.

So what is your idea?

The rich should be more safe because they have a larger economy to waste on Firearm clubs, Karate, and self-defense apparel; or that everyone should gain subsidized personal safety so that public safety becomes less financed inorder for finances to go to paying for personal safety and as such the minimum is lowered.

Come, explain your ideas.

[Rancid]

No, I espouse raising the minimum; you espouse raising the maximum.

no.. i want to raise both the Minimum and Maximum as much as possible.

is it her fault?

It is not her fault

everyone is free to make their decisions on how to stay safe. I'm not saying everyone should learn karate, or pack guns.. or pack pepper spray. I"m just saying.. people should be allowed to if they want to

In other words, you would lower the minimum in order to raise the maximum.

So what is your idea?

nope. I want to raise both as much as possible

[Zyx]

Explain how, you would raise both minimum and maximum, in the politics of limited revenues.

[Rancid]

Explain how, you would raise both minimum and maximum, in the politics of limited revenues.

First, read above, i added a little more to my post in case you didn't notice.

There is plenty that can be done without spending money. I would advocate this to EVERYONE no matter income level..

as i said before..

walk on lighted streets, walk with people, make sure your phone is charged so that you can call 911. Avoid bad neighborhoods.

teach people to do things like scream and make a lot of noise to attract attention if they are attacked.. etc. i'm sure there's much more, i just can't think of any of that.

There are plenty of "how to stay safe" websites out there with good info that doesn't cost a dime.

[Zyx]

You want safety to be a competition between citizens; or atleast you allow for it to be. Correct?

I suppose this is a silly conversation to have though, but I just want you to be clear that if you believe that people can become more safe by investing towards their safety, you allow for the richer to become "safer" than the poor.

For instance "bad neighborhoods" are actually neighborhoods that some frequent IRW.

[Rancid]

You want safety to be a competition between citizens; or atleast you allow for it to be. Correct?

I suppose this is a silly conversation to have though, but I just want you to be clear that if you believe that people can become more safe by investing towards their safety, you allow for the richer to become "safer" than the poor.

For instance "bad neighborhoods" are actually neighborhoods that some frequent IRW.

I would want everyone to be as safe as possible. I don't understand you competition question.

the richer are safer in general because they can afford to spend money on security (cameras, body guards.. etc.. etc, houses in nice areas and what not), true.

However, there is no need to bring the rich down in my opinion. Instead bring the poor people up. I know that's easier said than done, but it's possible. I'm an example it.

[Zyx]

However, there is no need to bring the rich down in my opinion. Instead bring the poor people up. I know that's easier said than done, but it's possible. I'm an example it.

We all are examples of safe and fit people, considering we are alive.

But even so, I feel that it is a robbery to live in a society where one's safety depends on one's personal contributions to that person's safety.

I believe it defeats the purpose of grouping and task management; I think back to that old essay on how a person living alone on an island would need to clean its clothes, raise its food, and make its tools but later how division of labor makes for society as attractive and less of a load on each person. In other words, a labor portion of society that ensures safety makes for me to pay more attention to what I guarantee for society . . . if I have to protect myself then I do not see why I am taxed for overall protection or why I choose others as neighbors.

[Dr House]

You already said that you do not believe that someone should be more safe than a handicapped person; or do you think that it is alright when a blind person is assaulted before you are?

The handicapped person should be safe, of course. But your argument is that we must all be equally safe. Therefore, if for some reason he is not safe, the burden falls on me to be unsafe, and thus be equally safe to him.

Take out "government" and put in "society."

Then consider what society is for and come back to me.

It's better for society to provide a modicum of safety, which is actually within their scope, and let us take care of the rest. That's what we do now, after all. Law enforcement can't be everywhere, and I wouldn't want them to. But if I want to or have to live in the city, I should be able to defend myself if I'm attacked.

You are not a realist. It's all well and good to wish that everyone were perfectly safe, but in the real world, the cold, harsh reality is we're not. If you accept reality and go from there, then you can call yourself a realist.

[Zyx]

Therefore, if for some reason he is not safe, the burden falls on me to be unsafe, and thus be equally safe to him.

Is there a particular reason why someone should be unsafe while you are safe Dr House?

I know that it seems silly that when your neighbor is under a gun, you too should volunteer yourself under a gun (or at least that is how you are making me sound) but can you explain why one neighbor should suffer to be under a gun while another is not?

Wanting them equal is not wanting both under a gun, but simply that one should not be "more safe" than another.

Explain why one should be, and pray that you are never put into a position where you cannot maintain safety over your person and would need to depend on others to maintain it for you.

But if I want to or have to live in the city, I should be able to defend myself if I'm attacked.

Why do you insist that you will get attacked?

If you accept reality and go from there, then you can call yourself a realist.

This is not what "realism" is, after all you "reality" is a delusion.

The reality is not that "shit happens," that is just your conception of the world. In "reality" one is hardly at risk when living in the city; I should know, I aged in the city.

[Dr House]

Why do you insist that you will get attacked?

Because I might. The chances are low, but people do get attacked, if they didn't this would be a non-issue. And cities do tend to be comparatively less safe than the suburbs. And I hate the suburbs.

Wanting them equal is not wanting both under a gun, but simply that one should not be "more safe" than another.

I know that's not what you want, but that's what the philosophy implies. The choices are: either they're both safe, one is safe and one isn't, or neither of them are. If you emphasize "equality" rather than pragmatism, tghen they must either both be equally safe or they must both be equally at risk. So if another person is at risk and I cannot reasonably make them safe, it is my duty to put myself at risk so that I may be equally "safe" as that person. What's more, if I attempt to rescue that person, I am likely putting myself at more risk than they are, thus violating the principle of equality. At the risk of repeating myself, it is absolutely ridiculous.

To be a realist, you must consider all the implications, either good or bad, of your proposal. Because they all happen in the real world, even if some do less frequently than others. Shit unfortunately does happen.

[Zyx]

Because I might. The chances are low, but people do get attacked, if they didn't this would be a non-issue.

Well, my concern is more of it being a non-issue than it being an issue.

Would you agree with arms even if crime were EXTREMELY low?

And cities do tend to be comparatively less safe than the suburbs. And I hate the suburbs.

I actually hear that suburbs are very unsafe; especially with the white supremacists about.

I know that's not what you want, but that's what the philosophy implies.

Some people are incapable of defending themselves; intoxication, incapacitation, handicap, etc.

Why should they be less safe is the question.

To be a realist, you must consider all the implications, either good or bad, of your proposal. Because they all happen in the real world, even if some do less frequently than others. Shit unfortunately does happen.

Realism is self-interest towards relative gains.

That is, preferring to get 10 dollars when everyone else gets zero, rather than getting 20 dollars when everyone else is.

It really has to do with nations, but it does not have to do with "shit happens."

[Dr House]

Well, my concern is more of it being a non-issue than it being an issue.

Would you agree with arms even if crime were EXTREMELY low?

Well, I'd still keep mine at home, locked away. Take it to the range every once in awhile. Wouldn't carry it, though.

Some people are incapable of defending themselves; intoxication, incapacitation, handicap, etc.

Why should they be less safe is the question.

I would agree they need to be safe, and if I got the chance I'd see to it myself. I just don't think the whole "equality" thing is relevant. If they are not safe because I am unable to help them, it doesn't mean I need to be unsafe, as well.

Realism is self-interest towards relative gains.

That is, preferring to get 10 dollars when everyone else gets zero, rather than getting 20 dollars when everyone else is.

It really has to do with nations, but it does not have to do with "shit happens."

That's interesting. My standby is the exact opposite. It is better for some people to have $10 and some have $30, or even some have $5 and others have $40, than for everyone to have $5. Equality is not a goal we should aspire to, and neither is inequality. Only absolute gains for the poor, or should those not be possible, absolute gains for everyone else that do not make the poor worse off are to be the ultimate goal. But it has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Zyx]

Take it to the range every once in awhile.

This is decent, but what right do you have for taking it to the range . . . or killing an animal with it, since that is another option.

If they are not safe because I am unable to help them, it doesn't mean I need to be unsafe, as well.

You would not be unsafe, just as safe.

They are only unsafe when you are safer.

That is, when you are in a group, the person sitting alone is less safe than you.

Now I do not claim that you should disperse your group, nor the more logical "open up your group," but rather I am just showing how relative safeness can affect the safeness of others, and further applying it towards those who are incapable of "personal safety."

Simply put, the realism part is that I do not agree that you should gain a gun if it will make me unsafe since I do not want to go to the range on my Sundays or carry a gun around with me.

But it has nothing to do with this discussion.

Maybe, I brought up realism because you thought it silly that I should not want someone to have a gun since I do not want a gun.

I mean, realism has nothing to do with economic levels, just simply relative gains and personal winnings.

Another realist position would be for a person preferring to get 0 dollars when everyone else gets 10 dollars rather than make it so that everyone (including that person) gets 20 dollars.

Which is another position I would take.

[Dr House]

you thought it silly that I should not want someone to have a gun since I do not want a gun.

I did not think it silly you would deny me my right to bear arms. After all, most liberals argue I do not need a gun to protect myself. I thought it silly that while you tacitly acknowledged my point on self-defense, you still denied me my right to defend myself in the way I chose. You said:

Clearly, the constitution does not provide the right to bare arms for the woman in the alley being attacked by a mugger and neither should we. That said, I think "liberals" are against guns for self-protection because "self-protection" is not a right.

[Zyx]

Oh, in that case: If self-protection is a right then cite it.